Conservation models
and wildlife governance

Module 03

Objectives

  1. Describe the 7 tenets (pillars) of the North American Model of Wildlife Management
  2. Describe alternatives to the North American Model
  3. Provide a critique of the North American Model
  4. Describe the how governance of wildlife resources has changed over time.

Models of wildlife management

Systems (organized and not) of wildlife management are guided by:

  • history and culture
  • centralization of responsibility
  • funding mechanisms

Models of wildlife management

North American Model of Conservation

  • a paradigm of what has been done in NA along with some what should be done

Seven tenets (pillars, sisters)

  1. Wildlife is a public trust
  2. Elimination of markets for game
  3. Wildlife is allocated by law
  4. Kill only for legitimate purposes
  5. Wildlife is an international resources
  6. Wildlife policy is based on science
  7. Democracy of hunting

Wildlife is a public trust


Thoughts?

Elimination of game markets

  • Lacie and Black Bass Act

  • Game farms?

  • Trespass fees?

  • Invasive species?

Thoughts?

Wildlife is allocated by law

  • Many of our wildlife norms and ethics have been codified into law

Thoughts?

Kill only for legitimate purposes

  • Ethical or prescriptive stance
  • Who defines “legitimate”?
    • Trophy hunting?
    • Fur trade?
    • Invasive species?
    • Nuisance species?
    • Depredation permits?

Thoughts?

Wildlife is an international resources

  • Migratory bird treaty act
  • Marine mammals act
  • IUCN

Thoughts?

Democracy of hunting for all

  • Is there equal opportunities for all to experience the outdoors?
  • Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)

Just as diversity is critical to the resiliency and strength of our native ecosystems, theNebraska Game and Parks Commission knows diversity is critical to our mission and success. We are committed to fostering a diverse workforce and creating an environment that is welcoming and inclusive for our staff and constituents. Our actions and our programs will reflect this culture of belonging and equity for Nebraska’s communities and visitors.

Science is the backbone to wildlife policy

Bill Proposes Limiting Citizen Input On FWP Decisions

Thoughts?

Wildlife management can’t happen without funding

Overview of the criticisms of the NAM as characterised in the Peterson et al. reading

  1. Neglect of important stakeholders

  2. Overt focus on game species

  3. Reality is much more fluid and “grey” than described

  4. Undefined use of legitimate and proper

  5. Ignores the role that values are incorporated into wildlife management and conservation

  6. Funding mechanisms and the “tyranny of the minority”

Critiques of the NAM

Descriptive critiques

  • Overly simplistic view of who are wildlife stakeholders
    • stymie diversity
    • complacency among managers
  • All accounts of history involve framing, so the choices made in eliminating details, not the act of eliminating them, are where problems may arise.

Those in power write the history, while those who suffer write the songs
          ― Frank Harte

  • Focus on the roles of hunters and hunting, rather than also acknowledge the role of naturalists

Descriptive critiques

  • increased diversity among the wildlife conservation community is viewed as critical
    • historical NAM neglects the role of women, minorities, or non-hunters
    • example: those that gave rise to the golden age of environmental protection and the migratory bird treaty act


  • dangerous complacency among wildlife managers by emphasizing wildlife conservation successes and deemphasizing failures
    • saving game species from the brink of extinction, and many include consideration of non-game waterfowl saved from the plume trade
  • nongame species often excluded in wildlife management
  • exotic species viewed treated as beneficial when introduced for hunting

Descriptive critiques

  • the emphasis of saving game species has occurred during the Anthropocene (Holocene) extinction

  • “no surprise that the conservation biology field would splinter from the wildlife management field and then rapidly rival this discipline in terms of professional society membership, and arguably global impact, diversity, and scientific impact”

  • terms connoting permanence including “seven sisters,” “pillars”, a “foundation for wildlife conservation,” “bedrock”, “fundamental policies” , and having “endured the test of time”

    • Commerical markets for fur, herpetofauna, fish
    • the “Texas Model”
    • Reality policy is more variable and dynamic

Prescriptive critiques

  • Every wildlife conservation decision is accompanied with a value based judgment about what objectives should be manifest

  • Legitimacy as established by what some hunters consider legitimate but provides no rational bases for those choices

Consider the tenet that says wildlife may only be killed for legitimate reasons, this principle is as basic and appropriate as it is void of useful insight about defining a legitimate purpose.

  • Science is the “proper” way to manage wildlife
    • Many final decisions are made by non-scientists and can be politically motivated
    • Scientifically derived facts cannot dictate choices without the application of values
  • Tyranny of the minority
    • legitimate use of wildlife that centers around hunting and trapping contributes to a form of governance where a small minority shapes management impacting a good that everyone has an ownership of

So wtf do we do?

  • Developing a narrative that is unrestricted by allegiances to hunting and game species

  • Rewrite to include the movement’s increasingly diverse constituency and complex history

  • Alternative funding sources

  • Autopsies on where and why we failed on those species that slipped through the cracks

  • Being CRITICAL and OBJECTIVE

Messy or wicked problems

Public trust thinking

What is public trust thinking?

Public trust thinking (PTT) is a philosophical orientation toward natural resources that emphasizes public ownership, long-term sustainability, broad public participation, and avoidance of preferential treatment of special interests
~ Hare & Blossey, 2014

  • The public trust doctrine is an expression of PTT

  • PTT as a potential solution to persistent and emerging challenges affecting wildlife conservation in the United States

    • potential to produce favorable socioecological outcomes
    • foster more responsive, even-handed, and participatory mechanisms of public engagement
    • overcome systemic biases and structural impediments to fair and effective public wildlife governance

Clarifying terms

  • An expansive definition of “wildlife”, possibly encompassing all non-domesticated taxa and acknowledging the interdependence of species
    • Challenge: no public wildlife agency has jurisdiction over all species, let alone land uses that affect habitat
  • Fairness is construed as equal consideration among all current beneficiaries and among generations of beneficiaries
    • all values and interests in wildlife are legitimate
    • Challenge: future beneficiaries can not participate in management decisions

Increasing authority and capacity

  • PTT places responsibility for public wildlife conservation on government, but public wildlife agencies often lack powers required to conserve wildlife
    • Challenge: private lands that are crucially important for conservation.
    • Cross-boundary collaboration: coordination across property boundaries to integrate productive private lands with effective wildlife conservation

Clarifying roles and responsibilities of trust administrators

  • Uncertainty about who is responsible for wildlife trust administration impedes effective conservation
    • Challenge: structure and authorities of agencies largely reflect the historical context that they were established
      • public wildlife agencies may not currently have the funding, capacity, legal authority, or organizational flexibility to operate in ways consistent with PTT
      • Increase the collaborative governance among stakeholders

What is a stakeholder?

Anyone that has a stake in the form of 1) recreation, 2) cultural, 3) social, 4) economic, or 5) health or safety

Include those: 1) benefit and cost, 2) legal standing, 3) political influence, 4) power to block, and 5) sufficient moral claims

Practicing impartiality and avoiding bias

  • Wildlife governance should reflect the full suite of societal values and not be biased toward one group of stakeholders
    • Challenge: certain beneficiaries and interest groups (on all sides) may believe that they are entitled to preferential treatment (remember back to the “tyranny of the minority”
    • Representative and inclusive

Overcoming institutional resistance to change

  • Requires significant changes to contemporary priorities and practices in public wildlife governance

  • Challenge: Change will be slow

    • substantially adjust policies, budgets, processes, and practices to reflect legal obligations and societal expectations for considering all beneficiary interests

Promoting public adoption of PTT

  • Optimally functioning requires: 1) informed beneficiaries,
  1. individuals aware of their entitlements and obligations, 3) engaged throughout wildlife decision-making processes from information gathering, through planning and implementation, to mechanisms of appeal and accountability
  • Trustees are obliged to consider the interests of beneficiaries who do not or cannot express their interests in wildlife issues
    • Challenge: Managers must actively seek out and engage stakeholders
    • Problems with trust (history) and knowledge
    • Most members of public are not engaged

Increasing focus on performance, measurement, and accountability

  • Clear metrics that beneficiaries can assess trustees’performance, as well as transparent decision-making processes and mechanisms for beneficiaries to challenge decisions that fall short of trust standards

  • Systematic and timely measurement, evaluation, accountability, and reporting processes through

    • improve the sensitivity and responsiveness (adaptability) of the system, sharpen conservation objectives, and increase confidence in and credibility of public wildlife governance

Legitimizing decision-making processes

  • Trustees are expected to be impartial yet wildlife decision making in the United States is inherently political
    • trustees are appointed
    • policies they pursue (think back to the portrayl of the Washington Commissioners)
    • non-transparent decisions

Recognizing and informing beneficiaries of the inherent risks of decision alternatives, including the risks associated with making no change, will allow trust administrators to negotiate paths forward with beneficiaries informed of potential positive and negative consequences of different courses of action.

Alternative wildlife models

Many different systems exist across the world and vary based on 1) ownership of wildlife, 2) how conservation is funded, 3) who manages the populations, and 4) access on private lands

Can you contrast the system in UK, Norway, Namibia, Guatemela, or Thailand with the NAM?

Wildlife governance

  • Governance is the combinations of all the mechanisms and instruments used to steer society

    • local to global
    • transboundary and transauthority issues
  • Authority on who uses goverance can vary from a strong top down approach to a collaborative approach.

  • Collaborative governance involves state and federal agencies, IGOs, NGOs, universities, industry, and the public

  • Wildlife is managed within the context of the governance structure

State wildlife commissions

  • Almost every state there is an appointed volunteer commission or board that either oversees or advises the wildlife agency

    • Only four states (MN, NY, CT, RI) do not have wildlife commissions

    • Oversight commissions (38 states), duties vary by state but include setting policy and budget for the agency, rule-making, and hiring (and firing) the agency’s director

    • Advisory commissions (8 states; AL, DE, IL, ME, MD, ND, SD, WV)

  • Commissions range in size from four to 19 seats, with most being in the 7-11 range

  • Members are usually appointed by the governor, often requiring confirmation by the state senate

    • Many states require that at least some commission seats be reserved for hunters, anglers, trappers, and/or agricultural representatives
    • Some states (e.g. North Dakota, Mississippi) prohibit non-consumptive users from serving on their commissions

Collaborative governance

  • In the US, wildlife management has moved from a top-down approach to a more collaborative approach
  • Importance of IGOs and NGOs
    • Capacity building
      • Cost sharing
      • Resource sharing
      • Increased public support

What are farm bill biologists?

Farm Bill biologists assist land managers in designing, developing, and funding (federal, state, and local programs) habitat improvement projects on private property

Compliance with regulations

  • instrumental- individual decisions are made to balance the illegal gains of non-compliance with the perceived risk of getting caught and punished

  • normative – individuals sense of moral duty that arises from moral obligations, social norms

  • Regulations are only effective with enforcement

    • need to have the ability to identify or detect non-compliance

    • should follow procedural justice

    • ”heavy-handed” enforcement to voluntary compliance

    • transparency of decision-making process

    • public engagement

    • public trust